When is a Tulwar not a Tulwar?

drac2k · 2nd August 2013, 11:37 PM

What makes a tulwar; is it the handle or the blade ? I've got an interesting piece that I just acquired which sure has a tulwar blade; it is quite large, has a pronounced false edge on the back side, a shallow fuller in the middle on both sides and it is quite sharp ! The blade also has a strange mark, which could be an armory mark, etc.I think the blade has a good bit of age.
The guard is in the traditional European way with a gutta-purka handle .
Anybody out there know what I have got, if they can tell me, it would be appreciated!

laEspadaAncha · 3rd August 2013, 06:55 AM

M ELEY · 3rd August 2013, 07:42 AM

Hey, that's the BookMobile! Too funny!

Waiting for Jim to reply. Not my area, but isn't this a Brit cavalry saber issued to the East Indian troops? Didn't Mole produce these? The hilt looks right, with the grips, but is this the standard blade type for these? Circa 1860's.

drac2k · 3rd August 2013, 10:51 AM

Something used by East Indian troops or on that order is my guess too.I don't think I properly caught the "tulwar," blade profile in my pictures; definitely not a European type blade.
Thanks,
David

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd August 2013, 05:03 PM

'A tulwar is a tulwar, when it is a tulwar' - quite simple, dont you think?
The shown sword I will leave to Jim, and expect a lecture from him on the subject

.
Tulwars are mostly described as having a relatively broad, slightly curved blade with a ricasso and a false edge. This is important, but what seems to be more important, is the tulwar hilt, as any sword with this kind of blade, but without the tulwar hilt is not a tulwar.
Some blades are slightly curved, while others are very curved - shamshir blades. Some have a ricasso while others dont - but they are still called tulwars. To this comes that there are other blade types used, but they are still called tulwars.
One type, where the hilt type does not make it a tulwar is, the belt sword. Here the blade is so flexible, that it can be used for a belt. This kind of sword is due to the flexibility very difficult to fight with, but the ones I have seen all have the tulwar hilt.

Jim McDougall · 4th August 2013, 06:43 AM

LOL!!!

Chris ya got me there!!!! the 'bookmobile' it is Mark!
As Jens has fairly warned, a lecture could break out here.....while I couldnt put a dent in the true tulwar case compared to his expertise...I do know some on the British Raj history.

Actually Mark has hit it quite well, and these British M1853's were provided for the Indian native units, typically into 1870s and 80s, possibly longer.
As far as I have known, these were like the regulation 1853s but most of the ones I recall were of the number made by Rodwell & Co. (if memory serves) and were for private units some assoc. with Baroda, I think a railway outfit.

The hilts on those though seemed flimsier, and this one more substantial, more like an actual surplus hilt. Clearly the blade is different, and seems remounted. These swords were aready being replaced by 1864 with full sheet guards and many of the native units selected certain British patterns which remained in use into the 20th century.
Actually the M1796 stirrup hilt light cavalry sabre remained in use and limited production specifically for Indian units past the 1880s.

Yes, Mole (a subcontractor for Wilkinson) did produce various swords for India, including three bar hilt sabres and actually true tulwars with Indo-Persian hilts in steel or brass. I once had two of these with Mole on the blade back.

As far as I know, 'tulwar' is an Indian term for sword, and does not necessarily apply to a specific form in actuality, though collectors typically insist on categoric classification. Many shamshir hilt sabres used in India are termed 'tulwar' (as seen in Rawson), and presumably even these British hilt sabres might be regarded as tulwars in Indian parlance.

Im not sure what the mark at the forte is, but possibly an armoury or issue type mark?

drac2k · 4th August 2013, 12:28 PM

Great information and all answers are deeply appreciated !So it seems,based on your post I can conclude that all Indian swords are tulwars or "Indian x sword =tulwar ."
David

Jens Nordlunde · 4th August 2013, 05:07 PM

Sorry Jim, but I think you are going too far, if you say, that the sword shown at the top is a tulwar.
In my opinion you can have a tulwar with a shamshir blade, a tulwar with an Afghan blade, a tulwar with a European blade or a tulwar with an Indian blade - mostly slightly curved. So it seems as if the hilt is more important than the blade form. To this comes, that whatever the blade form/place of origin is, a special name is attached to the tulwar.
When this is said, I may as well add, that you can find tulwar hilts with kukri blades, just as you will find Sosun Patta's with a tulwar hilt - but none of them are tulwars.
Jens

Jim McDougall · 5th August 2013, 07:05 AM

Actually what I said was that, as far as I have understood, the term used in many of the North Indian dialects to describe sword pictured (not otherwise described) is often 'tulwar'. Therefore what we think of as a shamshir, when in use in Indian context, may be called a tulwar by speakers of these dialects, while those speaking English may called it a saber.

Since I am not a linguist, nor authority on Indian arms such as tulwar, I suppose what the sword pictured would depend on who is describing it....but no matter what name it is called by, it is still a sword in function. So that is what I meant......not that it IS a tulwar, but that is what it might be called in Indian terms.

Just think of how many years of entertainment we have had with these classification terms, and the convoluted distortions that have risen from transliteration, semantics, misperceptions and outright errors (such as the jamadhar/katar mishap in Egerton). The 'collectors terms' in many other cases are an entirely other field day!

Jens Nordlunde · 5th August 2013, 12:32 PM

Hi Jim,
Sorry I must have misunderstood you.
Add to what has been said so far, that the different weapons often have different names, depending from where in India they come.

Jim McDougall · 5th August 2013, 05:13 PM

No problem Jens...Im not sure I fully understood what I said either! at least until I reread it. I think this is a hazard of the dreaded age advance

This topic is anything but concise anyway, and as you have wisely pointed out, the terms for the diverse weaponry of India are as varied and complex as the amazing number of languages and dialects that exist there. Factor in the complications of the others that come in through early colonialization and expanding incursions of other cultures!! and yikes!

I recall being told that in the case of many weapons in the Indonesian archipelago and through much of SE Asia, terms can even vary village to village!!! While probably somewhat exaggerated, I think the point is well taken, and applicable in many, if not most, ethnographic contexts.

drac2k · 5th August 2013, 06:25 PM

Jim,
The information you provided was a good starting point and while I have found several 1853 blades produced for the" East India Co.," they all have the European blade configuration.I found several locally produced blades with crude Western type "D," guards with tulwar blades (after our discussion, based subjectively on what one deems to be a tulwar blade),but not as pronounced as mine.These were clearly trying to imitate Western swords.
I think, as you have stated, that the key, is the mark; hopefully it is an armory proof that someone will recognize !
Thanks,
David

M ELEY · 7th August 2013, 09:04 AM

Actually, I think Jim has hit it on the head. The hilt, as I said, looks very similar to the Mole varieties of British swords, with the criss-cross patterning, hilt shape which isn't shaped to the hand, but rounded, like the other brit swords of this period (think m1845 naval cutlass, m1850's artillery swords, etc). Mole exported many swords with this hilt type all over the world (even for the Confederacy during the Amer Civil War). Jim mentions that Mole made tulwar patterns (including ones with similar baldes) for the East Indian troops, so mentioned and even supported by Jim having had several. I seem to recall a pic of one in Southwick's catalog? Have to look that one up. All info, so far and not barring this being a remount, seems to indicate a Brit issuance sword for East Indian troops. Could the marking be a Hindi arsenal number that has been partially rubbed off?

2nd August 2013, 11:37 PM	#1
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,230	When is a Tulwar not a Tulwar? What makes a tulwar; is it the handle or the blade ? I've got an interesting piece that I just acquired which sure has a tulwar blade; it is quite large, has a pronounced false edge on the back side, a shallow fuller in the middle on both sides and it is quite sharp ! The blade also has a strange mark, which could be an armory mark, etc.I think the blade has a good bit of age. The guard is in the traditional European way with a gutta-purka handle . Anybody out there know what I have got, if they can tell me, it would be appreciated! Attached Images

3rd August 2013, 05:03 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	'A tulwar is a tulwar, when it is a tulwar' - quite simple, dont you think? The shown sword I will leave to Jim, and expect a lecture from him on the subject. Tulwars are mostly described as having a relatively broad, slightly curved blade with a ricasso and a false edge. This is important, but what seems to be more important, is the tulwar hilt, as any sword with this kind of blade, but without the tulwar hilt is not a tulwar. Some blades are slightly curved, while others are very curved - shamshir blades. Some have a ricasso while others dont - but they are still called tulwars. To this comes that there are other blade types used, but they are still called tulwars. One type, where the hilt type does not make it a tulwar is, the belt sword. Here the blade is so flexible, that it can be used for a belt. This kind of sword is due to the flexibility very difficult to fight with, but the ones I have seen all have the tulwar hilt.

3rd August 2013, 06:55 AM	#2
laEspadaAncha Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 608

3rd August 2013, 07:42 AM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Hey, that's the BookMobile! Too funny! Waiting for Jim to reply. Not my area, but isn't this a Brit cavalry saber issued to the East Indian troops? Didn't Mole produce these? The hilt looks right, with the grips, but is this the standard blade type for these? Circa 1860's.

3rd August 2013, 10:51 AM	#4
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,230	Something used by East Indian troops or on that order is my guess too.I don't think I properly caught the "tulwar," blade profile in my pictures; definitely not a European type blade. Thanks, David

4th August 2013, 06:43 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	LOL!!! Chris ya got me there!!!! the 'bookmobile' it is Mark! As Jens has fairly warned, a lecture could break out here.....while I couldnt put a dent in the true tulwar case compared to his expertise...I do know some on the British Raj history. Actually Mark has hit it quite well, and these British M1853's were provided for the Indian native units, typically into 1870s and 80s, possibly longer. As far as I have known, these were like the regulation 1853s but most of the ones I recall were of the number made by Rodwell & Co. (if memory serves) and were for private units some assoc. with Baroda, I think a railway outfit. The hilts on those though seemed flimsier, and this one more substantial, more like an actual surplus hilt. Clearly the blade is different, and seems remounted. These swords were aready being replaced by 1864 with full sheet guards and many of the native units selected certain British patterns which remained in use into the 20th century. Actually the M1796 stirrup hilt light cavalry sabre remained in use and limited production specifically for Indian units past the 1880s. Yes, Mole (a subcontractor for Wilkinson) did produce various swords for India, including three bar hilt sabres and actually true tulwars with Indo-Persian hilts in steel or brass. I once had two of these with Mole on the blade back. As far as I know, 'tulwar' is an Indian term for sword, and does not necessarily apply to a specific form in actuality, though collectors typically insist on categoric classification. Many shamshir hilt sabres used in India are termed 'tulwar' (as seen in Rawson), and presumably even these British hilt sabres might be regarded as tulwars in Indian parlance. Im not sure what the mark at the forte is, but possibly an armoury or issue type mark?

4th August 2013, 12:28 PM	#7
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,230	Great information and all answers are deeply appreciated !So it seems,based on your post I can conclude that all Indian swords are tulwars or "Indian x sword =tulwar ." David

4th August 2013, 05:07 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Sorry Jim, but I think you are going too far, if you say, that the sword shown at the top is a tulwar. In my opinion you can have a tulwar with a shamshir blade, a tulwar with an Afghan blade, a tulwar with a European blade or a tulwar with an Indian blade - mostly slightly curved. So it seems as if the hilt is more important than the blade form. To this comes, that whatever the blade form/place of origin is, a special name is attached to the tulwar. When this is said, I may as well add, that you can find tulwar hilts with kukri blades, just as you will find Sosun Patta's with a tulwar hilt - but none of them are tulwars. Jens

5th August 2013, 07:05 AM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	Actually what I said was that, as far as I have understood, the term used in many of the North Indian dialects to describe sword pictured (not otherwise described) is often 'tulwar'. Therefore what we think of as a shamshir, when in use in Indian context, may be called a tulwar by speakers of these dialects, while those speaking English may called it a saber. Since I am not a linguist, nor authority on Indian arms such as tulwar, I suppose what the sword pictured would depend on who is describing it....but no matter what name it is called by, it is still a sword in function. So that is what I meant......not that it IS a tulwar, but that is what it might be called in Indian terms. Just think of how many years of entertainment we have had with these classification terms, and the convoluted distortions that have risen from transliteration, semantics, misperceptions and outright errors (such as the jamadhar/katar mishap in Egerton). The 'collectors terms' in many other cases are an entirely other field day!

5th August 2013, 12:32 PM	#10
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jim, Sorry I must have misunderstood you. Add to what has been said so far, that the different weapons often have different names, depending from where in India they come.

5th August 2013, 05:13 PM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	No problem Jens...Im not sure I fully understood what I said either! at least until I reread it. I think this is a hazard of the dreaded age advance This topic is anything but concise anyway, and as you have wisely pointed out, the terms for the diverse weaponry of India are as varied and complex as the amazing number of languages and dialects that exist there. Factor in the complications of the others that come in through early colonialization and expanding incursions of other cultures!! and yikes! I recall being told that in the case of many weapons in the Indonesian archipelago and through much of SE Asia, terms can even vary village to village!!! While probably somewhat exaggerated, I think the point is well taken, and applicable in many, if not most, ethnographic contexts.

5th August 2013, 06:25 PM	#12
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,230	Jim, The information you provided was a good starting point and while I have found several 1853 blades produced for the" East India Co.," they all have the European blade configuration.I found several locally produced blades with crude Western type "D," guards with tulwar blades (after our discussion, based subjectively on what one deems to be a tulwar blade),but not as pronounced as mine.These were clearly trying to imitate Western swords. I think, as you have stated, that the key, is the mark; hopefully it is an armory proof that someone will recognize ! Thanks, David

7th August 2013, 09:04 AM	#13
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Actually, I think Jim has hit it on the head. The hilt, as I said, looks very similar to the Mole varieties of British swords, with the criss-cross patterning, hilt shape which isn't shaped to the hand, but rounded, like the other brit swords of this period (think m1845 naval cutlass, m1850's artillery swords, etc). Mole exported many swords with this hilt type all over the world (even for the Confederacy during the Amer Civil War). Jim mentions that Mole made tulwar patterns (including ones with similar baldes) for the East Indian troops, so mentioned and even supported by Jim having had several. I seem to recall a pic of one in Southwick's catalog? Have to look that one up. All info, so far and not barring this being a remount, seems to indicate a Brit issuance sword for East Indian troops. Could the marking be a Hindi arsenal number that has been partially rubbed off?